In defense of Professor Evan Charney

The Sanford School of Public Policy recently decided not to renew the contract of Evan Charney, a professor of the practice who teaches PPS 302 (Policy Choice as Value Conflict) as well as courses on free speech and genomics. We, the co-signed, write this letter to demonstrate our support for Professor Charney and to express our desire for the Provost’s office to reverse this decision.

Professor Charney’s teaching style is wonderfully thought-provoking and challenging. His students’ ideas are vetted and sharpened through rigorous debate and discussion on issues ranging from physician assisted suicide to the legalization of sex work. No thought goes unexamined; no assertion goes unchecked.

His courses undertake the difficult challenge of exposing students to viewpoints that conflict with how they think and what they value—and although many students find this teaching style uncomfortable, this is both welcomed and desired. In this Socratic format, the professor leans into student discomfort in order to encourage self-examination and critical inquiry.

Because of this, Professor Charney often takes on positions that are not his own in order to illustrate perspectives from across the spectrum. For example, in 2016 during the peak of the Allen building protests, he spent a whole class discussing the motivations and tactics of the protestors and challenging his students to argue cogently in favor of or against the movement. Though in some cases this put the burden on protesters in his class to justify their actions, it also exposed the unsavory and borderline racist opinions of others. His rationale is clear: without confronting new ideas, students go through Duke unchallenged and are unable to evaluate the merits of competing claims.

To be sure, Charney’s courses elicit a discomfort inherent to any situation that requires students to re-evaluate their most deeply held convictions. In presenting differing perspectives on sensitive topics, some are concerned that his class reproduces systems and structures of inequality involving notions of class, privilege and power. The concern here is that, in the name of “diversity of opinion,” the class becomes a staging ground for perspectives that reinforce the negative racial, class, and gender power dynamics that exist in society and on this campus. In recognition of this, he makes sincere and intentional efforts to reach out to students who might feel hurt or offended by the class discussions. In these cases, he seeks to address the offense and listens genuinely to recommended changes to the ways in which he teaches sensitive subject matter.

Students enroll in Professor Charney’s classes in large numbers and award near-universally positive reviews because Professor Charney approaches critical issues with a unique candidness. We believe that this style is an integral element of preparing students for the world of public policy and constructive civil discourse. In a time when political tribalism and divisiveness keep us from engaging fruitfully with one another, the skills Charney teach us are necessary to train the next generation of citizens.

Duke is no stranger to the ongoing national debate over controversial campus speakers, free speech and safe spaces. Events such as the ill-advised invitation of Zuhdi Jasser to speak on domestic Muslim radicalization or the abhorrent alumni response to Duke’s “People’s State of the University” protest suggest that Duke still has a long way to go before it is a safe and open campus. More recently, the controversy on the Duke memes page and unacceptable racial slurs discovered at 300 Swift have plunged this campus into a full-blown debate over the imposition of hate speech codes. For some, Charney’s dismissal would signal a positive move towards making this campus a “safer” place. We believe that Professor Charney’s dismissal, however, is a regressive step and sends a dangerous message to professors and students alike to avoid the discussions that allow us to engage with difficult and politically charged issues. In short, we need Charney more than ever.

Although a small number of students have voiced concern with Professor Charney’s class environment, we do not believe that this warrants termination of his professorship or outweighs the overwhelmingly positive experiences of past and current students. Additionally, we do not believe that the discomfort voiced by some is the result of a deliberately hostile environment intended to harm or marginalize students. Rather, Charney regularly calls out students for opinions laden with microaggressions and logical fallacies.

We respectfully request that the Sanford School of Public Policy reconsider its decision. We further ask that anyone reading this letter who has taken a course with Professor Charney to speak up. Whatever your opinion of Professor Charney, please take the time in the next few days to write a letter to Dean Sally Kornbluth (sally.kornbluth@duke.edu) to share your personal story.